OLL LEWIS: Panda Diplomacy

As part of the recent trade agreements between the UK and China, Edinburgh Zoo and the Zoological Society of Scotland have signed an agreement with the Chinese Wildlife Conservation Association to enable them to house a breeding pair of pandas.

This is quite an event because these days China is extremely picky about who gets its pandas, applicants having to satisfy some political requirements as well as the quite stringent ecological ones.

“This historical agreement is a gift to the people of the UK from China,” said China's ambassador to the UK, Liu Xiaoming.

“It will represent an important symbol of our friendship and will bring our two people closer together.”

The chief executive officer of the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland (RZSS), David Windmill, said: “This is a landmark day for RZSS, Edinburgh Zoo, the UK and China.

"It represents the beginning of a programme of research, education and partnership and the project has huge benefit for the UK and Scotland, both in supporting giant panda conservation and in enhancing our programmes in education, science and conservation."

Not everyone is impressed, though. Charity 'OneKind' did not see the merits of having a breeding pair of pandas in the UK. The charity's research manager, Ross Minett, said: “In this day and age, the prospect of two animals being transported from their homeland across the world so that the paying public in Scotland can see them in a cage in a zoo raises serious animal welfare concerns and is outlandish.”

“This is a commercial deal: the animals may appear to be diplomatic gifts - an outdated concept in itself - but in fact the zoo will pay a substantial fee for the lease of these animals.

“The Scottish and UK governments should ask themselves whether their support for this project is really in line with modern concepts of animal welfare and conservation.

“International conservation organisations like the World Wide Fund for Nature favour an approach that protects the panda's habitat and allows the natural population to grow, and if Edinburgh Zoo is serious about conservation it should be throwing its support behind local projects in China.”

I have actually been following this story for a while, though, and can address one of the concerns that Ross Minett raised: the fee he mentioned was actually a donation by the RZSS to help future conservation projects in China.

GUEST BLOGGER GRAHAM INGLIS: Pandering to the media

Graham Inglis is my best friend, and also happens to be Deputy Director of the Centre for Fortean Zoology. Here he espouses what is certain to be a deeply controversial theory. Indeed it is so controversial that it has taken ME by surprise and I am not quite sure what to think about it.

However, we believe in Free Speech here at Cryptozoology:Online so, what do YOU think?

In an article for Wildlife Extra, Chris Packham has suggested, somewhat apologetically, that it's time to give up on trying to save the panda.

His article can be found HERE

He summarises the panda situation as follows:

"An ex-carnivore bamboo muncher unfortunately ends up in the most populated place on earth. Its food predictably all dies with disastrous regularity and its digestive system is poorly adapted to its diet. It's slow to reproduce, tastes good, but in a blind strike of evolutionary luck it is plump, cute and cuddly."

- and he suggests we "save our relatively paltry funds for cases where we can make a real difference."

There is, one might say, food for thought in this proposal. I'm inclined to go somewhat further, and ask whether it would actually be be a good idea to let them die.

Of course, emotion is involved, it's not just economics involved. There's few animals more iconic to the conservation movement than the panda; and in the case of the WWF it's literally iconic - they've has had the panda as their logo for many years.

Doubtless some people would feel uneasy about account-book-driven prioritising, feeling that such a cold-blooded approach has resonances with eugenics. Nazi Germany, and all that. Unfortunately, funding is finite, and budgeting is a reality whether we like it or not. We can't remedy everything simultaneously, so it follows that choices have to be made.

On the other hand, grand causes can generate public interest and thus potentially generate a harvest of funding.

One hears of cats rescued from burning buildings that then need extensive - and thus expensive - surgery to restore ears or other anatomical features. Since domestic cats are so abundant, one could argue the money would be better spent in neutering programs or caring for the thousands of strays.

However, one should never underestimate the media "awww" factor (as in, "awww, ain't that sweet.") A single "feel-good" restorative surgery story in the media, especially on a day when news is in short supply, can generate huge interest in animal care. The resultant boost to fund-raising and volunteering could well more than repay the initial expenditure.

There are pro's and con's in any financial reckoning, but I do sometimes ponder one very drastic and perhaps controversial consideration:

Maybe the world would benefit from a high-profile failure.

If the pandas were allowed to die out, this undoubtedly would be a big news story. The resulting recriminations could well kickstart a serious campaign to address habitat loss in general and related issues such as illegal logging and corporate pollution.

The panda's evolution may well have dead-ended itself. But possibly this cuddly freeloader might yet justify its existence.